Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:03:13 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 07:42:00, Chris Carson wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 07:06:08, Alvaro Polo wrote: > >>On July 21, 2000 at 01:11:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On July 20, 2000 at 19:57:16, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>>On July 20, 2000 at 19:11:03, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>[Event "DB-GK the rematch"] >>>>>[Site "am Rd1; bm Rf5+"] >>>>>[Date "2000.05.31"] >>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>[White "DEEP BLUE"] >>>>>[Black "Garry Kasparov"] >>>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>>[WhiteElo "?"] >>>>>[BlackElo "?"] >>>>>[FEN "4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1"] >>>>> >>>>>DB played Rd1?? which caused a giant immediate material loss where Rf5+ >>>>>is the obvious defence. The most convincing argument is the score DB gave >>>>>for Rd1?? way too positive (perhaps Uri remembers) and the very negative >>>>>(and correct) scores some of the micro's gave when they did an analysis. >>>> >>>>Didn't someone say this one was caused by a C macro being improperly expanded or >>>>some such? >>> >>>I don't know and I really don't care. All we have are a few games and >>>hiding behind bugs is not a very convincing argument. >>> >>>Ed >> >>If what you are seeking is the truth you should care. >> >>Alvaro > >The truth is that Ed, Uri, and Amir are right. DB had bugs >and a simple eval (so that HSU could put it into ASICS, HSU >was a HW guy Murry was the SW guy, trade offs were made to >create ASICS). > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson You are obviously an ASIC expert? And their claim of 8,000 adjustable eval terms is therefore bogus? And it was our imagination that it beat Kasparov 3 years ago? thought so... Nice to have someone that doesn't know anything about hardware declaring what Hsu could and couldn't do, _after_ he had already done it...
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.